Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 185 (R) of 1980, decided on 6th April, 1983.
‑‑S. 13 (ii)‑Retirement after completion of 25 years' service qualify ing for pension‑Competent authority can set up a machinery for probing into matters to obtain advice‑Competent authority then can either accept or reject such advice ‑‑Order passed by President being competent authority after considering advice/recommendation of Review Committee set up for such purpose, held, not exception able‑Appeal before Service Tribunal against such order, held, stood abated under provisions of Art. 13 (1) of Provisional Constitu tion Order, 1981‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 13 (1).
M. S. Siddiqui for Appellant.
Syed Muhammad Shahudul Haque for the State.
Date of hearing : 3rd April, 1983.
In this appeal, Mr. Kamal Raza, has challenged the order passed in the name of the President on 22nd November, 1980, retiring him from service in the public interest in exercise of powers conferred under clause (ii) of section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973).
2. In the appeal, as originally filed, several objections were taken, but when it came up for heating the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the changed legal position, restricting the jurisdiction of the courts and Tribunals in such matters under Article 13 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, confined his arguments to the competency of the President in passing the impugned order.
3. Mr. M. S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that no doubt in the case of the appellant, the President was the competent authority to retire him, nevertheless, legally the order can be said to have been passed by the President only if it is established that the President himself applied his mind, and did not act mechanically on the recom mendations of the other functionaries of the Government. He contended that the case of the appellant was examined together with the cases of several persons by a Review Committee, and whatever that Committee decided; the President approved it.
4. In our opinion, the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance. No doubt, the Authority in this case was the President himself, but it is not for the President to make inquiry in each and every case himself and pass orders of such type, as has been impugned before us, If such a view is allowed to hold the field, then the day‑to‑day function of the Government will come to standstill, and the President who is the Authority in respect of a number of cases, would not be able to examine each one by himself. The President, therefore, and for the matters any other competent authority can set up a machinery to probe into matter to obtain advice and he can then either accept the advice or reject the same, and pass the orders accordingly.
5. In the present case, we have gone through the record, and on facts also, find that the President had fully gone through the Summary sent to him and made notes thereon, He did not accept all the recommen dations of the Review Committee, but rejected quite a few recommenda tions which he did not consider to be appropriate. In fact, the President had done more than what was expected of him, and we were surprised after seeing this file that in spite of his busy life, he examined each and every case himself.
6. The appellant had completed 25 years of service qualifying for pension and other benefits. He was retired by the competent authority. The two ingredients of Article 13 (1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 having been satisfied, this appeal stands abated under the provisions of that Article. It is ordered accordingly.
7. There shall be no costs.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer